Court Asks BIA To Rule |On Forced IUD Insertion

NEW YORK (CN) – The 2nd Circuit asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine whether participating in the forced insertion of an intrauterine device constitutes persecution, making the perpetrator ineligible for asylum.

It granted review to Chao Qun Jiang, a former employee at a family planning clinic in China who stood guard over three women scheduled for forced abortions and IUD insertions as part of the country’s aggressive population-control methods. Jiang claimed she released all three women under her watch – a violation of Chinese law – and fled the country to avoid punishment. She sought asylum under the Convention Against Torture, but was denied relief based on a finding that she participated in the persecution of others. The appeals court said precedent was shaky because the BIA has ruled inconsistently on whether forced insertions of IUDs constitute persecution. The judges remanded and asked the BIA to “articulate a consistent position on ‘whether and under what conditions forced insertion of an IUD constitutes persecution.'”